Re: changing "configure" to default to "gcc -g -O2 -fwrapv ..."

[Robert Dewar]

Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2006-12-30 20:07:09 -0500, Robert Dewar wrote:
> >  In my view, this comparison optimization should not have been put in
> >  without justification given that it clearly does affect the semantics
> >  of real code. Indeed if you really see code like
> >
> >    if (a - 10 < 20)
> >
> >  in place of
> >
> >    if (a < 30)
> >
> >  a very likely explanation is that you are deliberately doing something
> >  strange with wrap around, and should leave it alone.
>
> I disagree concerning your "very likely explanation". This code
> may come from the use of macros, in which case this has nothing
> to do with wrap around.

Sorry, my "you" was unclear, I meant you as in a human not you as
in a compiler. Yes, if the code comes from macros, it might well
be in advertent, and of course inadvertent overflow, never mind
potential overflow can be hidden in macros this way.

My point was that if you see this in a source program, it is in
fact a possible candidiate for code that can be destroyed by
the optimization.

And that's the trouble, this is an optimization which does improve
performance, but may destroy existing code, and the very example
you gave to talk about improved performance is also a nice case
of showing why it may destroy performance. In fact the wrap
around range test is a standard idiom for "hand optimization"
of range tests.
>